Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CENTRALIZED OHIO Recount Updates

Posted on 11/12/2004 10:38:24 AM PST by montereyp1

Dirty Harry's blog "Stranded On Blue Islands" is going to be all over every aspect of the burgeoning Ohio recount. From the liberal loons to the media coverage.(Same thing really,)

Please boomark for updates and send tips and news. We'll have it all in one place.

Should be fun beating these RATS again in Ohio.

Here's the web address: http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Hank All-American; All

Besides, if Kerry knew he had the votes to force a recount or win in Ohio, I don't think we would have conceded the election at all...


41 posted on 11/12/2004 11:38:54 AM PST by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: All

People,

We don't have any firm numbers for this thread. The only thing official we know is the SOS website listed 155,000 provisionals statewide.

The "spoiled ballots" are ballots temporarily shelved because they did not show a vote for prez (undervotes) or they showed two votes for prez (overvotes).

A process has been underway the last few days to identify which of the 155000 PVs are valid votes by validly registered voters. We have only rumor as to how that evaluation is going In Total. We do have a partial count earlier this week that suggested about 66% of them would be ruled valid votes. That 66% were scattered all over the state, though there are rumors about that though scattered they are concentrated in urban areas of various cities. That would imply a leaning towards Kerry for them.

It is not clear if the 88000 number earlier in this thread is the actual count of the 155,000 PVs that are ruled valid or some additional number of potential votes.

Bush's lead is about 132000 after deducting the known error reported earlier of 3800 votes.

In the worst case of interpretation of all the rumors, there are 155000 + 88000 votes available to make up that gap. That's 243000 votes. The way to perform the calculation for what is needed is to deduct 132K from 243K and get 112K. Kerry needs 132K + 1/2 of that remaining 112K to catch up. This is 66K + 132K = 198000 votes. This is 81% of the total worst case interpretation of what total is available to extract votes from.

Bush's odds of victory remain good.


42 posted on 11/12/2004 11:56:31 AM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

I am eager to know how many provisional ballots in Ohio were accepted and how many were rejected. Does anyone have a source/Link on how to find this out.


43 posted on 11/12/2004 11:56:51 AM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis; All

I am kind of confused. There seems to be a lot of contradictory information here.

Were ballots discarded, were they not? Overvote yes, undervotes not?

Provisional ballots?


44 posted on 11/12/2004 11:59:23 AM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Also you are assuming that all the provsional ballots and spoiled ballots will be counted, which is impossible.


45 posted on 11/12/2004 12:00:08 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Owen

Ack, minor math error. 56K not 66K. That changes the needed win % for Kerry to 77%, not 81%. Still a very steep mountain to climb, state wide.


46 posted on 11/12/2004 12:00:08 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

I am indeed. That is what "worst case" means.


47 posted on 11/12/2004 12:00:45 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Owen

John Fund is apparently reporting that about half of the provisionals are being tossed.


48 posted on 11/12/2004 12:05:48 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

If that's true, then there is no way Kerry could win.


49 posted on 11/12/2004 12:09:36 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ambrose
I read earlier today that John Fund had mentioned on Brit Hume last night that almost half of the provisional ballots have been rejected.

However according to this thread, they link to http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2004/11/today-in-ohio-thus-far.html#comments, and this guy is claiming that in his phone conversation today with the Ohio Secretary of State official, the official does not know anything about what John Fund is reporting regarding the number of rejected Provisional ballots.

50 posted on 11/12/2004 12:17:05 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

John Fund may be reporting what he is hearing from the Republicans on the county boards. The Sec-of-State official won't know anything until it is officially reported to him.

Or, Fund is full of crap.


51 posted on 11/12/2004 12:22:55 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

I don't think Fund is full of it. Usually he's the opposite - Pesimistic.

I think if Fund was concerned that sKerry might take this away, Fund would say so.


52 posted on 11/12/2004 12:26:58 PM PST by Perdogg (W stands for Winner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Why the Ohio Election board are taking so much time to qualify the validity of the provisional ballots and count them. We are 10 days after the election and they still taking it so slowly.


53 posted on 11/12/2004 12:36:49 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: KJacob

Actually, the Ohio statute (section 3515.03) makes it pretty clear that county boards MUST conduct a recount upon request:

"Upon the filing of an application, ... the board shall promptly fix the time, method, and the place at which the recount will be made, which time shall be not later than ten days after the day upon which such application is filed or such declaration is made."

As a practicing lawyer, I can tell you that "shall" ordinarily leaves no room for discretion.

For the full statute, see:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/procedures_recount_os.html#351503


54 posted on 11/12/2004 12:37:42 PM PST by Bonaventure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

I called the SOS on how many provsisonals were accepted or not and they didn't know. It's happening in each of the 88 precincts. John Fund on Brit said HALF were disqualified but the guy I talked to said that seemed unlikely it's ususally 10% disqualified.


55 posted on 11/12/2004 12:41:13 PM PST by montereyp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Bonaventure
Upon the filing of an application, or upon declaration by the board or secretary of state that the number of votes cast in any election for the declared winning nominee, candidate, question, or issue does not exceed the number of votes cast for the defeated nominee, candidate, question, or issue, by the margins set forth in section 3515.011 of the Revised Code, the board shall promptly fix the time,

SHALL applies to the margins set forth in 3515.011.... less than 1/2 of 1%

56 posted on 11/12/2004 12:48:00 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ambrose

Gramatically, "shall" applies to both alternatives (separated by "or") -- the automatic recount and the recount upon application. Otherwise, the part having to do with the recount by application is a subject without a verb.


57 posted on 11/12/2004 12:53:14 PM PST by Bonaventure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Bonaventure

Yes, but what I see is the SHALL applies when the margin is less than 1/4 of 1% of the vote. I doubt this has ever been tested before.


58 posted on 11/12/2004 1:05:38 PM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: montereyp1
The Ohio Secretary of State official is using historical data to make this assumption that approximately 10% of provisional ballots are disqualified, because in 2000 for example 87% of the ballots were qualified.

However in 2004 there are more restrictions to "accept" a provisional ballot and this will lead to more disqualification. For example AP has news story two or three days ago where they said that In Cuyahoga county (Cleveland), the election board there did the first batch of 2667 ballots and 917 of them were disqualified and this amount to 35% of the total first batch. I do not know if this % of disqualification will increase or decrease for the remaining 24000 provisional ballots in Cuyahoga County.

Also the Toledo Blade has a story two days ago where they reported that in the first batch of provisional ballot in the county where Toledo is located , 45% of the provisional ballots were disqualified in this first batch. Again I do not know if this % of disqualification will increase or decrease for the remaining provisional ballots in this county.

59 posted on 11/12/2004 1:06:07 PM PST by jveritas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: jveritas

I understand that more provisional ballots are being disqualified under HAVA, which is a new federal statute that governs such things. Wasn't the rejection rate for provisional ballots in New Mexico as high as 50%?


60 posted on 11/12/2004 1:29:56 PM PST by Bonaventure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson